F 685 
.C6972 

Copy 1 



SPEECH 



OP 



.V 






HON. J. COLLAMER, OF VE 




If 



ON 



THE KANSAS QUESTION 



DEi,[Vi:Rr;:D 



IN THE SENATE OF THE T^ITED STATES, MARCH 1 and 2. 1858. 




W A S H I N G T N : 

PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOHE. 

1858. 






f. 



SPEECH. 



The genale having under consideration flie bill for the 
admission of Kansas into the Union as a State — 

Mr. COLL AMER said: 

Mr. President: I am fully aware that a larg;e 
part of the members of the 3eViate, and probably 
a considerable number of tlie- community, rejsjard 
this as a very worn out and threadbare subject; 
and they desire to have even the Lecompton con- 
stitution adopted, so that it may be ended. Tiiey 
desire that they may get rid of bein^; troubled 
with this matter; not to examine into it carefully 
and see what they should do, but to avoid the ex- 
amination ofitatall. I must acknowledge that I 
participate a little in that species of feeling myself. 
I am, I will not say exactly lazy, but naturally a 
littlft tired; and I do not like long, tedious inves- 
tigations; but, after all, I do not feel disposed to 
shove them aside merely for my ease. I remem- 
ber an instance of that kind in a Book which we 
all ouglit to know. A certain judge made a reso- 
lution that he would avenge a certain widow of her 
adversary, for a certain reason: that is, because by 
her much coming she troubled him. Some may 
say, " we will end this subject of Kansas in this | 
way, because, by its much coming here, it will 
trouble us." Who was that character? He was ' 
called the unjustjudge,{hat neither feared God nor 
regarded man. A just judge should proceed to ^ 
the examination of the subject, though by much 
coming it wearies him. j 

Mr. President, there are, in the progress of na- 1 
tions and of men, occasional points of time, and j 
occasional hill-tops of the journey, which present | 
to us contrasts so very striking that they will j 
command ihe attention even of a very indilFerent [ 
obsfM'vrr. These hill-tops in our journey which 
thus ariTst our attention and present the'ir con- 
trasts, afford us an opportunity to look inick upon 
the progress we have made, and upon the foot- 
steps by which we have advanced to it, and to 
look forward, too, from the same point to theprog- 
gress Vi^liich we may calculate upon in the future. 
The contrast which is presented to us in relation 
to the action of Congress on the subject of slavery 



in the Territories is between the present time, 
and four years ago. How stood this subject on' 
the 1st of March, 1854; and how stands it nov/? 
The contrast is a very great one; and it should 
command the attention even of an ordinary and 
casual observer. In order to have that contrast 
presented with some distinctness to the mind, 
and to enable us to view how we have obtained 
this difference of position, and to look forward 
from it to the degree of progress which we arc 
calculating to make in the future, would require 
some considerable length of time; but still I think 
it ought to be presented. 

Prior to the year 1854, Congress had, by acts 
of legislation at various periods, settled the su)?- 
ject of slavery in every inch of territory that this 
country owned. I do not say it was all done at 
one time, by one act; but by a succession of acts, 
making together an entire complete arransremcn'... 
How stood it then? In the territory which v/e 
acquired from France, all that portion of it soulii 
of the line of .3G0 31)' north latitude was open to 
slavery or not, as the people who might inhabit 
it should choose. In relation to all that country 
which we had acquired l)y our treaty with Mex- 
ico, it was arranged that the States formed out of 
that territory should be admitted as free States o:- 
slave States as their constitutions might prescribe 
at the time of admission. The condition of Oregon 
was settled and declared to be against slavery, and 
all the territory acfptired from France in thelsou- 
isiana purchase north of the line of 36° 30' vv-a^ 
dedicated to freedom, and had been for a rh.T'l 
of a century. 

Occupying that' stand point, could any man, 
lookiiijr at it in its then condition, have" antici- 
pated that in four brief years the whole of this ad- 
justment would be utterly destroyed, all these 
arranaements of peace obliterated, and that north 
of 360 30'^ then almost utterly uninhabited, lie 
would find what the President tells us is this day 
the State of Kansas, a slaveholding State, as abso- 
lutely such as South Carolina or djeoriria ? Is not 
that a very striking contrast? Is it not a contrast 
that must command the attention even of a casual 



observer, and demand of us that we should inquire 
how this has been efTected ? 

In order to understand the nature of the ar- 
ranjjement of which I have spoken, we iiave lo^ 
inquire who made it? from what authority did it 
spring:? who exercised that authority ? and how 
long liad it been exercised ? It was tlie action of 
Cons;ress Icgislatino: on the subject of slavery in 
the territory beyond tlie limits of particular States 
When did it begin? It began with the Govern- 
ment; and it was exercised at every stage of its 
existence, under the administration of almost 
every President that occupied tlie chair, by every 
political party tliat has ever been in power. I do 
not say that it lias been exercised in any one par- 
ticular way, but tiie power has been exercised; 
and it becomes us a little to ascertain how, in 
what manner, and at what period. I' shall not go 
into any very great detail on this point; I have 
had occasion heretofore to do so. Beyond the 
Ohio, all things were settled according to the 
arrangement of the ordinance of 1787. That or- 
dinance was ratified by Congress; and as new 
Territories were formed, in consequence of new 
StiUes being admitted from that region, the ordi- 
nance was vcenaTiied, and slavery was prohibited 
in every Territory formed northwest of the Ohio 
river. This was an exercise of the power of 
Congress over the subject of slavery in the Ter- 
ritorii'S. ^ 

When they came to legislate in relation to a 
country where slavery existed to any appreciable 
extent, did Congress leave it to the people there 
to be a topic of discord and contention among 
thoin in their infancy, and in the gristle of their 
youth? jN'ot at all. To say nothing now about 
the case of the cession by North Carolina of that 
which now makes Tennessee, let me take the case 
of the Pdississippi Territory ceded to the United 
States by Georgia. Slavery existed in that Ter- 
ritory, and did not Congress legislate about it? 
Certainly they did. Let it always be remei^bered 
that no princij)le on earth is better settled than 
lliis: that the power to regulate a thing includes 
tlie power to prohibit it. The power to regulate 
commerce includes the power to lay an embargo, 
and to lay an embargo unlimited in time: it has 
so been decided. Congress legislated on the sub- 
ject of slavery in the Mississippi Territory in 
179S, during the Presidency of the elder Adams. 
In forming the territorial government for Missis- 
sippi, where slavery existed, and where Georgia 
had ceded it on the condition tliat it should not 
be abolished. Congress regulated the matter and 
prohibited the importation into that Territor)' of 
[■laves from abroad. Congress could not consti- 
tutionally do tliat in the States until 1808; but ten 
years before that time they prohibited it in that 
Territory. That was legislating directly and ex- 
pressly on tlie subject of slavery in the Territo- 
ries; regulating it. 

In 1803, after the acquisition of Louisiana, Con- 
gress, in the formation of the Territory of Orleans, 
rnadc three leading provisions on this subject. 
Slavery existed in that Territory. It existed ex- 
ten.sively in the lower part of the Territory — ex- 
tensively,! mean, in proportion to the population. 
Congress provided, in the first place, that no slaves 
should be taken into thatTerritory, except in fam- 
ilies for settlement. Did they dream that they 
had no power to prohibit the introduction of slaves 



i into that Territory ? They never dreamed of it at 

I that day; for it was further provided, thai if slaves 

should be taken into that Territory for sale, they 

: should be thereby freed, and the men bringing 

I them in should be subject topenaltiea. Was not 

I that directly regulating and prohibiting the im- 

i portation of slaves into thatTerritory? Clearly. 

I They went on further to provide that no slaves 

should be taken there even in the families of tlieir 

i masters for settlement, if they liad been imported 

, in the United States since 1798. The meaning of 

that was this: "We told you when we formed the 

Mississippi Territory, that we, the General Gov- 

I ernment of the United Stales, where we could lay 

I our hands on the importation of slaves, would 

' prohibit it; you understood that; anil we now tell 

you that if you have brought any slaves into any 

of the Stati;s after that expression of our opinion, 

you shall not take them into this Territory of 

ours." 

Little of trouble, little of controversy, between 
the diflerent parts of the United States, arose on 
those occasions. They went on quietly by a sort 
of common consent until the admission of Mis- 
j souri,in 1820. Then a diiiiculty arose; then there 
I was a controversy; and wliat was done? Con- 
I gress found treat ditficultyin settling it; but they 
followed a very early example. " Abraham said 
unto Lot, let there be no strife, I pray thee, be- 
] tween me and thee, and between my herdmen and 
1 thy herdmen, for we be brethren; if thou wilt 
I take the left hand, then I will go to tlie right; or, 
j if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to 
; the left." A line was drawn thmugh where they 
stood, and Lot looked out upon the great }»!ain — 
then a great and rich plain of Jordan — a:.;d he 
journeyed to the east and occujiied it, and tlie 
controversy ceased. How did our fathers do in 
182U? There was a controversy between their 
herdmen; and they said, let there be no strife be- 
tween our children, for we are brethren. They 
ran a line and the strife ended. All was peace 
from that time until we got some more territory, 
which we acquired by the treaty of peace with 
Mexico. There had, however, in the mean time, 
been anotheracquisition — Texas — about which I 
do not propose to speak at large now; but on that 
occasion the same line was run, and no contro- 
versy existed on that point. ■ 

In regard to the acquisitions from Mexico, some 
difficulty arose; and it is said now, and much in- 
sisted upon, that on that occasi/in a jirincijile was 
established which required the repeal of the Mis- 
souri com|)romise in 1854. I have even heard it 
repeated this session, that the reason why the 
Missouri com|noniise was ultimately repealed, by 
the exertions of the South and the northern friends 
who joined them, was because they jjroposed to 
extend that line through the territory acquired 
from Mexico, and the nortliern people would not 
agree to it. What a strange excuse is this! The 
question we are discussing in these days is, had 
Congress power to prohibit slavery in any part 
of any Territory? because, if they had, they 
could prohibit it in all. Did not those men who 
made the proposition to extend the Missouii com- 
promise line to the Pacific, thereby agree that 
north of that line slavery should be prohibitL-d ? 
Certainly they did. They then granted and tried 
to exercise that very power. Tliey seem to talk 
now, however, as if there were no reasonable ex- 



cuse for the northern people not agreeing to the 
extension of that line. I do not know that they 
really desire to disguise the truth about that; but 
the whole truth should be told, if any is, because 
I hold that the truth half told is a lie. 

In California and New Mexico — which were 
acquired from Mexico by the treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo — slavery had been abolished. The law 
existing there was the law of freedom. In a con- 
quered country all laws, except those which can- 
not be enforced on account of political relation- 
ship, remain; all those laws that describe, guide, 
fix titles to property of any kind. The country 
which we acquired frAm Mexico, including Cal- 
ifornia, New Mexico, and Utah, was all dedicated 
to freedom. Can it be possible that gentlemen of 
tlie South can say there was anything unreason- 
able in the representatives of the free States de- 
clining to vote to dedicate it to slavery, when it 
was already free, and would remain so unless its 
status was changed ? I observe that the Senator 
from Louisiana is making a suggestion; perhaps 
it is a very important one. 

Mr. BENJAMIN. I did not mean to inter- 
rupt the Senator's remarks in the slightest degree. 
I was merely suggesting to his colleague that his 
argument might be turned the other way. If he 
will reflect for a moment, he will see that we got 
Louisiana, all slave territory, and they took half of 
it; and it was not a very unreasonable thing for 
the South to ask for half of the Mexican acquisi- 
tions, that he says were all free. 

Mr. COLLAMER. I have no doubt that the 
gentleman's ingenuity can turn any argument 
against any man. The suggestion was more loud, 
perhaps, than wasintended ;and I did notknow but 
that the gentleman was somewhat in the condition 
of the lawyer who kept talking loud after the de- 
cision of the judge. The judge told him there was 
no use of arguing after the decision had been made. 
He said he was not arguing, he was only cussing 
the decision. [Laughter.] The gentleman, it 
seems, does not like my argument. Suppose two 
men buy a field, and divide it by an east and west 
line; and they afterwards buy another fii-ld: does it 
necessarily follow that the same line should run 
throu2;h the second field, without regard to its 
locality, or the circumstances attending the case .' 
Not at all. But that is not the main point. The 
point is this: because they could not agree upon 
the further extension of this line, does that fur- 
nish any reason why one side should say it would 
take back all that it ever agreed to give.' Did that 
afford any reason to the South to say, "we agreed 
to the division of the Louisiana purchase; we have 
had our share; we have had Missouri, Arkansas, 
and Louisiana admitted as slave States; we have 
used up pretty much all our share; and now we 
tell you of the North that if you will not divide 
the new acquisitions in the same way, we will keep 
all we have got, and break up the old settlement 
too ?" This constitutes no reason at all; there is 
nothing in it. 

But, Mr. President, though there was contro- 
versy in relation to the territory acquired from 
Mexico, that was settled before we come to that 
point of time when the contrast of which I have 
spoken, as contrndisfinguisbed from the present 
time, is presented. In ] 850, after various contro- 
versies, the disputes in reference to the territory 
acquired from Alexico were settled and arranged. 



California was admitted as a free State; and ter- 
ritorial governments were formed for Utah and' 
New Mexico, declaring that, whenever the people 
of those Territories should be admitted into the 
Union as States, they should be received with or 
without slavery, as their constitutions might pro- 
vide. These acts of 1850, with some coordinate 
acts passed at the same time, were insisted upon 
as a finality. The great point of that arrange- 
ment, its great virtue, consisted in the fact that 
it settled everything that had not been settled be- 
fore. Though it might not be satisfactory to all 
the northern people, yet after all it was upon the 
whole reconciled to the people, because it was 
said it settled the matter, because itended the con- 
troversy; because there was to be no more strife 
" between thy herdmon and my herdmen, for we 
be brethren." 

There we stood in 1850; there we stood in 1854 
all was peace, all was quiet. But, sir, in May, 
1854, the Missouri compromise line was declared 
to be inoperative and void ; not because it was un- 
constitutional, but because it was said to be incon- 
sistent with the compromise measures of 1850. 
We are not left to imagine the reason for the dec- 
laration that the Missouri compromise line was 
inoperative and void, because the reason of the 
act was put into the belly of the act, and it was 
declared that it was repealed because it was incon- 
sistent with the compromise measures of 1850, 
when the fact really was that the existence of that 
line was one of the compromises; it was the basis 
of them; it was that without which there could be 
no finality. I thought then, and I thinK now, that, 
to say the least of it, this act was a gieat blunder; 
and Talleyrand said that in politics a blunder is 
worse than a crime. I have various reasons for 
thinking so; but the controversies which have re- 
sulted from it, the condition of the country ever 
since, and the condition of the country today, 
speak in a language more potent than any I could 
use, to show that it was a blunder. It is deeply to 
be regretted; but I suppose it cannot be corrected. 

Tlie essential qualities which enter into the ob 
jection to that act consist in this: there was a 
quid pro quo for the contract call(;d the Missouri 
compromise. It was of the essence of a contract. 
The South received their part, and have kept it; 
they have got their cake The North had barely 
entered on the wilderness which they took in the 
first place; they had firmed a single State, Iowa, 
from it, and the rest yet remained a wilderness. 
It was the disregard of that agreement; it was 
saying, " we will get more, and not restore what 
we have had," which constituted the ajiparent 
immorality of it, and which leads the people of 
the North to view it as a breach of contract, a 
breach of faith. I know there was constitutional 
power to repeal it; and I have heard it argued 
sometimes by those in high authority, that, be- 
cause Congress had power to repeal that compro- 
mise, nobody ought to complain when they did "^ 
repeal it. A man who can reason in that way i.'i 
a man who seems to have no moral sense, no 
standard of right and wrong, except that of the 
legal power to do anything. There is tio reason- 
ing with such a man. A moral sense so blunted 
as his cannot be reasoned with. 

All the measures of which 1 have spoken were 
southern measures. The Missouri coni|iromise 
particularly was essentially a soutliern measure. 



6 



The way to decide whether any measure is the 
nioasiiri.- i)f any party, or any si-ction, is to ascer 
tain whfthcr a tnajiirity of that party, or section, 
vote for it. A very large majority ol" the southern 
Representatives voted for the Missouri compro- 
mise line. It obtained a small minority from the 
North, enough to secure the requisite majority 
in Congress to pass it; but the majority of the 
southern Ile|)rcsentatives supported the measure. 
That made it a southern measure, and it was 
clearly such. The compromise measures of 1850 
were of a similar character; but they are now 
both disregarded, both broken U]1. 

Wiiat was proposed in 1854 as a substitute for 
this legislation.' All these measures were acts of 
Congress on the subject of slavery in the Terri- 
tories, begun and continued from year to year, 
and from Presidency to Presidency, at different 
epochs, throu^^h the whole period of our political 
history. All this was to be set aside; and what 
was to be substituted in its place? We had had 
a great deal of difficulty on this subject in Con- 
gress; and it was not deemed advisable to agitate 
it in Congress any more; but instead of that it 
was proposed that the subject should be turned 
over to the people who might settle in the Terri- 
tories, and that they should be left, perfectly free , 
to regulate their institutions in their own way- 
That was the substitute. It is sometimes called 
popular sovereignty and sometimes squatter sov- 
ereignty; but, at any rate, it was the substitute 
for the pj-eviims course of proceeding. From the 
words in wliich that principle was couched in the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill at the time it was passed, 
how did the world understand it, and how was it 
intended that the world should understand it.' 

It was declared that the Missouri compromise 
line, being inconsistent v.'ith the compromises of 
185U, was inoperative and void, and that by this 
declaration it was not intended to legislate slavery 
into the Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, 
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to 
form their institutions in their own way. How 
should the world understand that.' How was it 
intended that it should be understood.' Clearly, 
words cannot make it any plainer than those em- 
ployed. It was that the people who go there to 
settle shall be left tree as |ieo[ilc of a Territory, to 
regulate their Institutions in their own way. That 
was the version put upon it throughout all the free 
States, tind by the Democracy. It was insisted 
everywhere tiiat it commended itself particularly 
to the acceptance of a republican community, that 
that peo|)le should regulate their own affairs just 
as they pleased. It was said, " we do it here in 
Massachusii,tts, in Vermont, in Illitmis, and why 
cannot the people of Kansas do it just as well as 
we.'" Mr. Cass assured the people of Michigan 
tjiat, as he understood it, slavery could not go into 
Kansas unless the people of Kansas made a law 
authorizing it. Not only do the words of the act 
imply that the question was to be left to the peo- 
j)le, while a Territory, to settle for themselves, 
but that was the version put upon it everywhere, 
and the community were commanded to receive it 
with acceptance and delight, because of that prin- 
ciple. 

Then what did it amount to.' It was an invi- 
tation to the world, to all men everywhere, "come 
ye into this Territory of Kansas and there act to- 
gether as a people, and arrange, discuss, and set- 



tle the condition of your domestic institutions aa 
you plea.«:e." That was the invitation. It was 
to leave it to be adjusted by the progress of emi- 
gration. Could any man seriously suppose that 
an agitating topic which had disturbed Congress 
until they were so tired of it that they must brush 
it off and get rid of it, would be quietly and peace- 
ably settled by the people of the Territory.' Could 
it be reasonably supposed that if that subjext was 
to be left to those who should emigrate to that 
Territory, emigration would not be prompted by 
this very motive.' It was a stimulus to emigra- 
tion. It was saying to all the pe^iple of the East 
who were fond of the insiimtionsof freedom and 
regard the institution of slavery as a great evil, 
" it is for you now to go there; here is an open, 
fair field for you; make your exertions; prosecute 
your emigration; exerci.se your legal powers; 
make the Territory, as a reward for all your ex- 
ertions, a free Territory and a free State legally." 
At the siine time it said to all those who regard 
the institution of slavery as a divine blessing, "go 
ye there, and prosecute your exertions; push for- 
ward your enterprise; stimulate your emisrration ; 
and as the ix'ward of your exertions, lawfully [>iU 
forth there, sanctify it if you can to the holy cause 
of slavery." That was the invitation given forth 
to the world, and afti'r that invitation is given can 
any man fairly find fault because the people did 
go in accordance with it.' Can he find fault that 
people associai<;d themselves together, rendc;red 
aid and assistance to each other, material aid and 
comfort, in prosecuting that enterprise.' It has 
been done in every quarter of the country — the 
North and the South. It was to be expected; it 
was invited 

What might a man further have calculated .' It 
seems to me it requiri'd no very great length of 
foresiirht for a man to have calculated with cer- 
tainty what would have been the result. Where 
lie the elements of emigration .' Who have in- 
ducements to emigrate .' What are their purpose .' 
What is their character? What sentiments actu- 
ate them? The people of the South, especially 
those who are own(n's of slaves, are people of 
property, men who own land. The South, with 
six inillions of white people, has not more than 
one person to every eight or ten square rniles. 
They have no occasion to emigrate; they have 
not the elements of emigration; they have land 
enough where they are, unless, indeed, their sys- 
tem is of such a kind that they have to keep cull- 
ing over new land all the time, because they have 
exiuiusted the old; but even for that purpose!, they 
have enough for hundreds of years. No, sir; the 
material of emigration lies east. 

I cannot but say, at times, that if we look at the 
subject of African slavery on a broad and liberal 
scale, and with reference to great periods in the 
progress of the world, it is after all a very small 
subject, a very little affair. I think from the foot- 
prints they have left behind, it is obvious that 
the family of man makes around this earth great 
cycles of revolution. They follow the setting 
sun. The human family are prompted by reasois 
which they cannot control and which they hardy 
und(!rstand. Their progress is from the E:i;t 
westward. At the [iresent moment the great ex- 
odus of Europe which is throwing its avalancl e 
on this continent, joine/J with the emigrants fr^m 
the northern and eastern portions of this country, 



go to svvfill the great tide of emi2;ration. The 
family of man is h'd out to possess its (jreat patri- 
niony. ft is going around the earth; and the little, 
accidental ci)loniza|^n of a few Africans here, 
compared with this, is nothing but small eddies 
along the margin of the great stream. It is a 
small matter in the long run; but it seems to be 
enough to agitate our day and our time, tliough 
I can hardly consider it worthy of the great atten- 
tion and deep regard of philosophic statesmen. 

But, sir, as I was saying, the emigration thus 
passing from east to west, the great current of the 
family of man going out in each cycle of revolu- 
tion which it makes, partakes of the degree of 
civilization which in that period exists. The fam- 
ily of man now coming to this continent, and 
going out from our eastern and northern Slates, 
is deeply impressed with the love of individual 
independence, the love of freedom; the idea, too, 
that man, as a laboring being, having liis destiny 
in.his own hands, shall have his labor guided by 
the light of his own intellect; that we need no 
such forinations of society as to require a hier- 
archy in th^ Church, or a lordship and aristocracy 
in the State; that labor and intellect shall be to- 
gether; the laborer shall work by the light of his 
own intellect, guide his own destinies, participate 
in all the actions of his Government by his vote, 
and then he will appreciate the majesty of that 
system of which he i^ a member. Such people 
can never look upon the subject of slavery but 
with regret at least, and generally with displeas- 
ure. That is the kind of material that furnishes 
the emigration in this continent. It is of such 
elements that it is composed, and it is by such 
principles that it is actuated. Could any man, 
knowing this, when Kansas was open and the 
world invited to possess it and to mold its desti- 
nies, doubt what those destinies would be.' No- 
thing could prevent it being free, if it was left to 
the ordinary course and operation of the laws 
thatgovern emigration. It could hardly have been 
imagined that those people living right along the 
border were going to possess the whole of it. 
That would be to suppose that it must suffer vio- 
lence, and violent men must take it by force, be- 
cause they were nearest to it. That would have 
been a violation of the promised principle and of 
the plighted faith which the words of the act con- 
tained, that the people of the Territory should be 
left free to form and regulate their institutions in 
their own way. 

Mr. President, much has been said in relation 
to the motives and improper purposes with which 
some people went to Kansas. There can be no 
reasonable doubt that a very large portion of the 
emigrants who went there, among other purposes, 
to push their fortunes as emigrants, were invited 
there, many of them by this very assurance 
which the act of Congress contained. They went 
there not unlawfully, not with a view to make it 
a free State unlawfully, or by any force or vio- 
lence; but because they understood they had a 
right to make it free lawfully; and that is the very 
i-eason they went there. 1 am of course aware 
that, when you enter upon an enterprise of this 
kind, many disturbing geniuses, men who are 
fond of trouble and commotion, and who might 
naturally have anticipated there would be much 
of it there, may have been invited there on both 
sides — men of violence. There was indeed a 



great deal of truth contained in the remnrkof the 
man who was jrturneyiiig ihroui^li Arkansas, be- 
fore we acquired Texas, with his family and cart. 
He was asked, " Where are vou going.'" " To 
Texas." "What for.'" " To settle'on land." 
" Well," said the Arkansas man, " there is land 
enough here; it is all around you; you can have 
as much of it as you want." That was ratliera 
poser. .Various views were started, until the 
man, finding himself much cornered, at last 
came to the point: " I am going, "said he, " where 
I can fight for my rights." [Laughter.] There 
are some men who can never value rights they 
cannot fight for. To have them peaceilbly and 
lawfully is in no way satisfactory. Some such 
men, I have no doubt, have gone to Kansas; they 
have gone to fight for their rights. But that thi.s 
sentiment pervaded any considerable portion of 
that community, is utterly without foundation. 

Again, it is suggested that some of these people 
went from Massachusetts and other States, to do 
voting on a particular occasion, and go awav. 
Where is the evidence of that .' I know it js said, 
in the report of the committee here, that a man 
who was a candidate for Delegate to Congress, 
when he found that he lost his election, went 
away. I think they are apt to do that ail over the 
country, particularly where a man is so badly 
beaten that there is no chance for him at all, he 
is likely to go and try his luck somewhere else. 
The people went there to make that a free Terri- 
tory and a free Slate; and nothing would answer 
that purpose but to go there and vote, and to stay 
there to vote. There can be no foundation for the 
suggestion that they went there simply to vote, 
and then come away. It is utterly inconsistent, 
with their purposes. 

Such, sir, was the plighted faith of this country 
contained in the Kansas act. The next point we 
have to inquire into is, how far has that been 
{ carried out; how far has that pliglited faith be(;n 
redeemed; how far have that people been left free 
I to form and mold their institutions in their own 
' way.' Why, Mr. President, we come now to a 
point which has been made a great pointof issue 
from the beginning to the end of tlie controversy 
! since the passage of this act. The formaiion of 
i a Territory by Congress, is really nothing more 
nor less than passing an act of incorporation for 
I a city, or borough, or town. A territorial gov- 
ernment is nothing more nor less tlian a mere 
municipal corporation created by Congress. Con- 
I gress are sovereign, I take it, in all territory be- 
I yond the limits of any particular State. They 
i have jurisdiction of it; they are sovereign in it. 
I do not agree to a suggestion made in tiie report 
of the Committee on Territoties two years ago, 
' that Congress have a sovereignty over the Terri- 
' tories in abeyance. A sovereignty in abeyance 
is a paradox; it is no sovereignty at all; it is a 
sovereignty with no power. Even in the Dred 
i Scott case the Supreme Court came to this conclu- 
sion: they say nothing about the country which 
fell within the old ordinance of 1787; but in the 
I newly acquired territory they say Congress have 
plenary power for its government and are entirely 
sovereign over it within the limitations of the 
Constitution; they cannot, of course, violate any 
j of the prohibitions of the Constituti(ui; they can- 
! not establish trial without jury, and so on. 
i When we held the whole of the Louisiana pur- 



1^% 



8 



cliaso, fiom tlifi sources of the Mississippi down 
to tlio Gulf of Mexico, and from the banks of the 
riverMississippi to the Rocky Mountains, was this 
Government under obligations to create a territo- 
rial £;overnmcnt in any particular part of it? We 
were underno oblie-ation to make a Territory at all. 
"What I mean by Territory now is the technical 
sense of Territory — a municipal corporation in- 
corporated by law for the purpose of internal 3:ov- 
crnment. Congress had a perfect ri£;ht toligislaff 
for that whole country, keep it altogether as a 
body, make such laws as were necessary for it 
without callirig in the instrumentalities of second 
moans, and delegating power to them for this pur- 
pose. How,*then, can people talk so much about 
the right of the people of a Territory to make a 
State.' You might as well say that the people of 
a county in Virginia can make themselves into a 
State. They are organized for certain municipal 
purposes. This territorial incorporation is only 
for internal government and municipal purpo.'^es. 
Being a Territory is not an incipient stage to being 
a State; it vests no such power in them. It is only 
for jireeent convenience, and for the administra- 
tion of justice, and the preservation of peace in the 
'■asiest wa)^ When this act of incorporation for 
Kansas was passed, and the terms and conditions 
were stated in it, and especially on this topic of 
which I have spoken, how was it organized.' 
How did it go into effect.' Laws, good laws, no 
matter how gooil they are, furnish no security to 
men, nor to the rights of men. It is only in the 
execution of the laws that that security can rightly 
be found. 

How did they organize that corporation.' Sup- 
pose an act of incorporation for a bank, a rail- 
way, a toll-bridge, a turnpike, is granted iiy any 
Stati- to Messrs. A, E, C, D. and theirassociates, 
and 'it is provided that they may organize them- 
selves at such a time and place, the first meeting 
to be called by the Secretary of State: and sup- 
pose that when the Secretary of State issues his 
notice for the meeting of the members of that 
corporation for the jiurpose of organization, in- 
stead of tile M( ssrs. A, B, C, and D, mentioned 
in the charter, there should come Me.ssrs. E, F, 
G,and H,and, impersonating them, take posses- 
sion of the meeting and make themselves the cor- 
poration: that would be an attempt at organization 
under the act; but would it not be an entire usurp- 
ation.' Would it be that corporation which the 
State created.' Clearly it would not. 

That was the case here in the very first meet- 
ing of the people to make an electi<in of a Legis- 
lature for the Territory of Kansas. As authorized 
ill the act, the Governor issued his proclamation 
to the people. He shaped out theirdistricts; took 
a census of them; he called on them to make their 
election; and he appointed judges to preside over 
ihem and make returns to him — all according to 
the act. What then .' We allege, and have al- 
ways alleged, and have proved, that on that very 
occasion, with the then comparatively thin peo- 
ple, with only about two thou.-^and voters, iietwcen 
four and five tliousand people of Missouri w^-nion 
•the day liefore, encamping out on the previous 
■ night, and spread them.selves, armed, over all that 
Territory, took possession of every voting pre- 
cinct? in it liut one, drove the people from the 
)>i)lls, and made tin; organization. It was an utter, 
. absolute, entire usurpation and military conrpiest. 



and the Territory never was organized according 
to the provisions of the act of Congress. 

Now, sir, what sort of excuses have been made 
for this.' How is it attempted to be got rid of.' 
The actual residents of the 'ferritory have, over 
and over again, insisted on having this wrong re- 
dressed or corrected in some form; but v/hat have 
been the answers .' President Pierce, in his mes- 
sage to Congress, said he could not correct it, 
because the Executive had no power to correct 
the laws made by the Legislature under the forms 
of law. I do not say that he could. Some have 
said that the courts could correct it. Sir, what- 
ever is law for the Executive to carry into effect, 
is law for a court to administer. They cannot go 
behind the regular authentication. But when tlxe 
President seemed to concede that there had been 
violence there, and said he had no power to cor- 
rect it, why on earth did he not tell Congress to 
inquire into it and corrf.ct it.' There can be but 
one answer — because he was gratified to take tiie 
possession and keeping of the stoh-n goods. The 
House of Representatives, however, did investi- 
gate it, and their committee examined under oath 
the very persons who carried on thi8 invasion. 
The results of that examination are iiefore the 
world, matters of history and certainty. 

What did the Senate dor Did it pass the bill 
which the other House passed for a reorganiza- 
tion of the Territory.' Nothing of tlie kind. It 
was said here that the invasion only extended to 
the few districts where the people entered protests 
to the Governor. The people had been driven off, 
scattered, and intimidated by force and arms; and, 
sparse as the population was in the largest part of 
the Territory, they gave it up; that is to say, they 
did not know how to take proceedings to correct 
it. In some portions they did, and in three or four 
districts they filed protests with Governor Ileeder 
against these violent proceedings; but did they get 
redress.' Notatall. Governor Reeder, to be sure, 
set them aside and ordered new elections; but the 
moment the Legislature which had been elected 
by means of this invasion came together, they set 
aside all the [iroceedings of his, and ratified the 
original invasion. Now it is said, that, inasmuch 
as all of them did not protest, and the Legislature 
passed upon that point, every defect is cured, and 
we are estopped from making complaint. 

Here I cannot avoid noticing another thing. 
When the present President talks of anythingof 
that kind, he says that the territorial government, 
which we say was never legally inducted there, 
has been recognized by the different departments 
of this Government, and it cannot be corrected or 
looked into. The same point is now insisted upon 
by the miijority report in this case. That, to mj' 
mind, is a very extraordinary answer. What do 
you mean .' " We cannot correct it and will not 
correct it." Why.' " Because we never would. 
We will not now, because we told yriu we would 
not before." That is the very ground of com- 
])laint. It is nothing but one continued, protracted 
outrage, never e.\amined into, never corrected by 
ihi.s body. 

TuESD.w, March '2. 

Mr. President, when I yielded the floor yester- 
day, I was speaking of the first attemjited organ- 
ization of the territorial government of Kansas 
under the organic act, I endeavored to show that 



/ 



9 



it was made by force of an invasion from Mis- 
souri, spreading itself all over the Territory, and 
overawing and over-voting, in an unlawful man- 
ner, the people who inhabited the Territory. 

There have been attempted some excuses for this 
act. They have been mainly found in what has 
been alleged to be the conduct of the Emigrant Aid 
Society in sending out to Kansas persons from 
Massachusetts, though nothing is said at the same 
time about the Blue Lodge associations which 
had been formed in the vicinity for the purpose 
of taking possession of the Territory at the first 
bound. But, sir, I do not wish to be led off, as I 
think the community has been attempted to be led 
off, from examining into the true character of that 
invasion, by directing their attention and exciting 
their prejudices against some other people. I can 
merely say that the act of the Emigrant Aid So- 
ciety, in aiding persons who wished to go to Kan- 
sas for the purpose of settling, and, if you please, 
making it a free State also, had nothing unlawful 
in it; it was laudable and desirable. There was 
no single feature of illegality in it, and the pur- 
pose which they entertained, though it may call 
for anathemas and vituperation, really, after all, 
is not censurable. 

But, sir, there has been an infinite deal of un- 
necessary labor expended about that point, for if 
you examine truly into what the aid society did, 
you find that it amounted to very little. In the 
month of February, 1855, before this invasion 
from Missouri, and the first election, which was 
in March, 1855, a census was taken of the people 
of the Territory; the name of each person was put 
down, and the State from which he came. That 
census has been returned by the Governor and is 
in the archives of the State Department here. It 
was made for the purpose of partitioning out the 
Territory, and apportioning the representatives 
to the Legislature amongst the different districts, 
which was done. On a careful examination of 
that census, and of the places from which the 
people came, I have made a little table which is 
before me. No persons were ever aided by that 
Emigrant Aid Society except from New England, 
and,Isay,butaverysmallportionoftho3e. In the 
month of February, 1855, there were in that Terri- 
tory only one hundred and eighty -three men from 
all the New England States. I say not one half of 
them had had any connection with the society in 
any way, or knew anything about it; but it is the 
fact that only one hundred and eighty-three men 
in all were in that Territory from New England; 
and this is undertaken to be made the founda- 
tion of an excuse for the military invasion from 
Missouri of between four and five thousand men 
g;oing in armed, with banners flying, drums beat- 
ing, and marching with all the array of war. 
If it were true that those people had gone there, 
even, if you please, with the horrid notion of abo- 
litionizing Kansas — an awful idea ! — can it be 
made the foundation for any sort of justification 
for this invasion, conquest, and subjugation of 
that country .' 

Did that act of invasion, that mode of attempt- 
ing to organize the government, leave the people 
of Kansas "free.'" Certainly not. Has the Sen- 
ate of the United States — has the Government of 
the United States done anything on earth to re- 
deem the pledge of " perfect freedom .'" Have 
they endeavored to redress these people ? Have 



they endeavored to correct that wrong ? As I said 
before, we are told that if there was any objection 
to those persons who were elected members of the 
Legislature, the people could go to that Legisla- 
tureandhaveitcorrected. Whatamockery is this! 
You may go to the usurpers in order to pass on the 
legality and correctness of their own usurpations ! 
I fancy that gentlemen hej-e, and especially those 
who are lawyers, understand the distinction be- 
tween a challenge to the array of a jury, and a 
challenge for favor of particular members. When 
the challenge is to the array, how idle it would be 
to undertake to call upon those very jurors thus 
collected, to pass on the question whether they 
were legally brought together. I know that in 
challenges to favor, the good old practice of the 
common law was this: if an individual is chal- 
lenged, triers are appointed, and they pass upon 
his case; and when they have passed upon three 
of them, they become so many members of the 
jury; the triers are dismissed; the jury go on 
passing upon the challenges to individuals, until 
you fill up the jury box; but you see they are 
expurgated, and persons are called that are not 
obnoxious to the objection. But how could that 
Legislature thus usurped, thus put into power by 
an invasion from abroad, aiding and assisting a 
very small minority of that people, pass upon the 
challenge of the array .'' And yet we are told that 
we are estopped from going into that matter, be- 
cause the Legislature passed upon it! No, sir, 
there was no mode of correcting this wrong but 
by an act of legislation, and that has been denied. 

Now, sir, in order to trace how it is that the 
constitution which we have now before us is the 
child, the result, the ultimate fruit and conse- 
quence of that usurpation, it is necessary to see 
how it was that those who were thus inducted 
into power perpetuated that power, how their ac- 
tion operated to produce this constitution in its 
present form. That can be done briefly. When 
that Legislature assembled they proceeded to pass 
laws, as they called them. Among those laws was 
one which required that every person who might 
be permitted to vote at all, should, if challenged, 
take an oath to support the fugitive slave law. In 
the next place they passed an act which declared 
men subject to penalties and imprisonment if they 
should publish or declare anything which ques- 
tioned the right of a man to hold slaves in the Ter- 
ritory of Kansas. That is a topic that they were 
not permitted to discuss at all; that was put under 
the ban. Then provision was made that men 
might vote on paying taxes, but no time of resi- 
dence was required — of course intending that all 
those who lived near there could come in, settle 
for a day, pay a tax of fifty cents or a dollar, and 
vote, so that they might be saved the trouble of 
military expeditions afterwards. The purpose, 
the object, of those laws is perfectly obvious. No 
man in the exercise of ordmary discernment can 
possibly avoid seeing what it was. It was to 
drive the free-State people out of that Territory; 
it was to disfranchise them. 

Is it possible that any State or Territory, when 
Congress have passed a law and fixed the penal- 
ties for breaches of that law, can go on and ab- 
solutely disfranchise men if they will not swear 
to support it ? Did the Congress of the United 
States, in passing the fugitive slave law, ever 
declare or intimate that they supposed people 



10 



could be disfranchised aa citizens unless they 
^^(ou!d swear to support it? Has any State or 
Territory a ri2;ht to add new sanctions, new pen- 
alties and new consequences to the breach of a 
congressional act ? Again, it is said now that the 
slavery question is the question which, above all 
others, was intended to be left to the people there, 
and to regulate which they were to be left " per- 
fectly free;" and the Missouri compromise, we 
are told, was repealed in order that they might be 
loft to act freely upon it. Can it be possible that 
they were to be gagged on that subject, and were 
to be absolutely prohibited from discussing it 
altogether? Yet that was the legislation. It is 
perfectly certain that they not only intended this 
to be the effect, but they carried it out accordingly; i 
for when they undertook to p\Uthese laws in oper- 
ation wc know what was the result. Printing 
presses were destroyed and declared nuisances. 
Ijills were found against them as a nuisance, and 
the nuisance was abated without a verdict! A 
bridge, across which free-State people could pass, 
was a nuisance, and that was ai)ated ! The types 
and presses were thrown into the river. The city i 
of Lawrence was to be abated; and if any man 
made any sort of a defense it was constructive 
treason ! The people were imprisoned; they were 
hunted out; and if the officers whom the minority 
appointed at any time and place wanted assistance 
they called in a posse — who? Persons from Mis- ' 
souri. They overrun the country; the people were 
hunted out. I will not attempt to describe the 
ravages, the violence and blood which followed 
this in all its tracks. That was the season of 1856. 

One tiling, however, must be perfectly certain — 
that the free-State pcopl« then there, and who 
should go there while these test oaths and this 
gag law continued in force, were disfranchised 
people; they could take no participation in an 
election. The circumstances under which they 
were permitted to vote were such as utterly for- 
bade their exercising the right of suffrage. How 
long did these laws continue in force? Until the 
20th of February, 1857. That date becomes im- 
portant. I 

What took place while these laws were in oper- 
ation, and while these people stood thus disfran- 
chised ? An act was passed by the Territorial Le- 
gislature by which the people were asked to vote 
whether they would have a convention to form a 
State constitution. That question was put to the 
people. The free-State men could not legally par- 
ticipate in that election, and did not participate in 
it; and yet they are found fault with because they 
did not, and it is said they are estopped because 
they did not. What next? The second election of 
a Legislature took place in October, 1856. The 
same laws were then in force, and the Legislature 
which met in January and February, 1857, was 
elected by the same minority. The whole body : 
of the free-State people of that Territory were ut- 
terly excluded from that election, in the manner I 
have stated. They had nothing to do with it; they 
could have nothing to do with it — not merely that 
they did not desire to have anything to do with 
it, but the very forms of the law were made to 
deprive them from having anything to do with it, 
and did deprive them. It ill becomes men who 
are now trying to take advantage of that, to say 
to them, " you could have voted." " Did you 
meaD we should '" Evidently you did not. Cer- 



tainly nothing was put to these people but this: 
you shall have slaves or you shall be slaves — oni 
or the other. The men who made these laws die 
not expect them to vote; and they did not meai 
them to vote. The laws were made to prevent it 
and did prevent it; and they cannot find fault nov 
that men did not vote, whom they meant to pre 
vent from voting. 

The second Legislature was elected under the 
influence of these laws. It met in January, 1857 
That was the Legislature which passed the ac 
that called the convention. Now, Mr. President 
bear in mind that Governor Geary, who was thei 
there when that Legislature passed the act calling 
the convention together, disliked it, because it di( 
not provide for a submission of the constitutioi 
to a vote of the people. He communicated wit! 
them on that subject, and he says that they tok 
him they could not agree to put into the acta prO' 
vision that the constitution should be submittec 
to the jieopie; that they had had communication! 
with their southern friends on the subject, an( 
they could not do it. He vetoed the bill for tha 
reason. So says the Senator from Missouri; anc 
he says they passed it by a two-thirds vote ove: 
him. Yes, they did. What would you expeci 
them to do? Who made them ? What were thej 
made for? They were put into power by a mi 
nority of the actual residents, aided by an inva 
sion from abroad, for a distinct, particular pur 
pose. They went on to carry out that purpose 
and shape their course accordingly, to make { 
slave State there. They meant to make it st 
despite the opinions of the people there, or thej 
would have submitted the constitution to a fan 
vote. They would not submit it to the peo])le 
because theirsouthern friends disliked it. Wher 
the Governor vetoed the bill they jiersisted in it 
they would have a convention, and would makt 
no provision for submitting the constitution to th( 
people. Why? Because the people would vot< 
against them. Is that making a constitution bj 
the people, and for the people ? Was that a con 
vention elected by the people ? Were they acting 
for the people ? Clearly not. 

An election of delegates was made, and thej 
met together in convention. They met in the 
beginning of September. They adjourned becaust 
a general election for the Legislature of the Ter 
ritory came on in October, 1857. From April 
1857, the Territory had been presided over, firs 
by acting-Governor Stanton, and afterwards bj 
GovernorWalker, who, when they had been then 
long enough to ascertain the real condition of tht 
people of that Territory, gave out assurances tc 
them that they should have a chance of voting ai 
the October election, fairly, under the United 
States laws — not under the territorial acts. Thf 
people on those occasions frequently said to the 
Governor, as he tells us, " you cannot control 
these men; you have not the appointment of the 
judges of election; you have no control over them: 
if you knew them as well as we do, you would 
know that we could have no fairness in an elec- 
tion from them." 

There were some other men sent there, to whom 
I might allude — Governor Geary and Governor 
Reeder. When Governor Geary was sent there, 
he was sent upon a strange errand. I remember 
I saw the man when he was here about to go, and 
I looked at him thinking what an errand he was 



11 



sent upon; and so it is of the officers who have 
been sent there. They were told, "now you 
must execute those laws; it shall be done by the 
whole powerof this Government; but you are to 
see that there is fair and ample justice done to all 
that people." The thing involved a palpable in- 
consistency, a gross impossibility. You might 
as well have told these men " you are to go out, 
you understand, to do all kindness and equity 
and justice to the children of Bethlehem, but you 
are at the same time to carry out the decree of 
Herod." The thing was impossible. Iknewit 
was impossible when the man started away. I 
knew he would be involved in difficulty, and ne- 
cessarily must be. I knew, indeed, that he made 
some little effort himself to get the acts which had 
been passed in the Territory repealed before he 
went, but he did not succeed; he could not get it 
done; the Senate would do nothing about it. 

When the October election of 1857 was about 
to come off, Mr. Stanton first, and Governor 
Walker afterwards, endeavored to persuade the 
people to go into the election. Before that time, 
however, the election of delegates to the conven- 
tion came on. That was soon after the arrival of 
Governor Walker in the Territory. He went out 
beset with that delusion which seems to be cher- 
ished so much about here, that there is but a little 
factious disturbing minority of the people of Kan- 
sas who make all the trouble — that they are in a 
state of rebellion ! Governor Walker went there 
with that notion, and at first he could smell rebel- 
lion in everything. If the people associated in 
Lawrence to light and clean their streets, or build 
a bridge by common consent, he could see noth- 
ing in it but treason. He wanted a great army 
to environ that town; but after all, I do not know 
that he succeeded in shooting anybody, or that 
he found out any treason. He became disabused 
of this. So did Stanton, and so did Geary. They 
ascertained what the condition of the country 
really was when they had been there long enough 
to have a personal acquaintance with it, and then 
they began to see it in its true light, and they be- 
gan to try to carry out the direction they had re- 
ceived, that they should do justice to the people. 
I say, in regard to the election for delegates to the 
convention, that Governor Walker and Secretary 
Stanton tried to persuade the people to go into it, 
but all the time gave them the most direct assur- 
ances, coming from the President himself, that 
whatever constitution the convention might form 
should be submitted to their vote for ratification 
or rejection. That was the assurance they had. 

There was another element which entered into 
the election of delegates. The Legislature had 
ordered a census to be taken, and the delegates to 
be apportioned to the districts according to the 
census. A census was taken; and what I have to 
say of it is that in all the counties it was very 
imperfectly done; in many counties, and some of 
them very populous, it was not done at all. I 
know the Senator from Missouri says that the 
people prevented it; but how could the people 
prevent men from taking a census, where there 
was no officer to take it? Nor do I see how it is 
possible to prevent a man taking a census. He 
can inquire of the neighbors, or of anybody, who 
lives here? who lives there? who lives in this 
house ? and who in that house ? It seems to me 
a strange thing to say that you cannot take a cen- 



sus, cannot count the people. It is very much 
like the boy who could not tell how many piga 
there were in a certain lot; he had counted all that 
were there but one, and it was a spotted one, and 
kept running about so that he could not count it. 
[Laughter.] I do not see any difficulty in count- 
ing. Where there were officers, they could have 
taken the census truly. Where there were no 
officers, the people were not to blame; but in some 
counties where there vrere officers, they did not 
try to take a census at all. There were some fif- 
teen counties that were nominal counties, that 
did not have any census. Some of those were 
populous counties — populous for that country. 
You will perceive that that people as a body, as 
a mass, had no opportunity to be represented by 
delegates in the convention. 

In the next .place, it is true that the mass of the 
people had no confidence in the officers who were 
to conduct the election of delegates. They had 
no participation in the selection of those officers; 
and they were not appointed by the Governor. 
In the third place, the assurances which they re- 
ceived directly and expressly from the organs of 
the Government, authorized by the President him- 
self, were such that the people said to themselves, 
"really we do jiot care very much about the con- 
vention; we do not much care about their consti- 
tution; we do not care who writes it; we do not 
much care what it contains; because we are as- 
sured that we shall have the opportunity to vote 
directly upon it; that we shall have the oppor- 
tunity to reject it if we do not like it; to approve 
it if we do like it: that is what we are told, and 
therefore we need not trouble ourselves about the 
election of members of the conveiuion." Were not 
such tlie assurances given ? It will hardly be de- 
nied, I apprehend; but to make it perfectly clear, 
let me make a few quotations. The President, in 
his instructions to Governor Walker tiu'ough the 
Secretary of State, on the 30th of March, 1857, 
said: 

" When pucli constitution should bR submitted to the peo- 
ple of the Territor}', they must be piotficted in the exercise 
of their right of votina; for or ;i;|ahi.'it that instrument, and 
the fair expression of the popular will niu.-st not be inter- 
rupted by fraud or violence." 

Can anything be more explicit than this? Gov- 
ernor Walker, in an official dispatch to the State 
Department, dated June 2, 1857, said: 

" On one point the sentiment of the people is almost 
unanimous — that the constitution mu>t be submitted for rat- 
ification or rejection, to a vote of the people, who shall be 
bona fide residents of the Territory next fall." 

In his inaugural address to the people of Kan- 
sas, Governor Walker declared: 

" With these views well known to the President and 
Cabinet, and approved by them, I accepted the appointment 
of Governor of Kansas. My instructions from the President, 
throughthc Secretary of State, under date of the SOthMarcli 
last, sustain ' the regular Legislature of the Territory in as- 
sembling a convention to form a constitution.' And they 
express the opinion of the President, that wliou snch con- 
stitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory, 
they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting 
for or against that instrument, and the fair expression of 
the popular will must not be interfered with by fraud or 
violence. I repeat, then, as my clear conviction , that unless 
the convention submit the constitution to the vote of all 
the actual resident setUers of Kansas, and the election be 
fairly and quietly conducted, the constitution will be, and 
ought to be, rejected by Congress." 

These were the assurances which the people 
received. Might they not, then, very well have 
said, "when the time comes for us to vote, when 



12 



we may vote under these assurances, we will vote, 
if that fair opportunity be presented to us; but we 
know these nun, Governor, better than you do; 
we doubt whether that time will ever come; but, 
as you say it sliall come, and that tiie constitution 
will be rejected unless it does come, we will trust 
it; we will not make war; we will exercise no vio- 
lence about it; we will trust to the assurances we 
have received from you as the organ of the Gov- 
ernment, coming, as you #ell us, from the head of 
the Government. " 

Is it not strange to talk of that people having 
been estopped ? What is the doctrine of estoppel ? 
Among lawyers it is understood to be taking some 
objection, by which you prevent testimony from 
being taken; you estop a man from examination 
into the truth. It is said in the books to be odious 
even in the law; but it is absolutely intolerable in 
legislation. But, sir, the doctrine of estoppel is 
pushed a little beyond this, and with great moral 
propriety, in courts of law. Wherever one man 
gives to another man assurances of facts upon 
which he knows that man is to act, and the man 
does act upon them, the man who gave such assu- 
rances is never permitted to dispute them. If the 
honorable Senator from Maine, who sits beside 
me, [Mr. Fessevden,] is about to buy a horse of 
A B, and asks me whether that is A B's horse, he 
knowing I once owned him , and I tell him it is A B's 
horse, and he buys it, the doctrine applies. How .' 
Knowing that he was about to buy it, and giving 
him that assurance and permitting him to act un- 
der it, I am estopped afterwards from claiming 
that horse to be mine. If I could prove it to be 
mine I should not be permitted to do it; and this 
commends itself to the acceptance of every man. 
It is called estoppel in pais. 

What was done to these people? They were 
told, as an assurance coming from the President 
of the United States, "if the convention was elect- 
ed when you could not vote, or if it was called for 
by a vote in which you could not participate, no 
matter about the constitution it may make; it is 
to pass under your sanction, if it is ever adopted 
at all — then let it go." Now, sir, I ask, in all 
moral propriety, by the application of any sound 
ethics, are not this Government, this community, 
this Senate, as an integral part of this Government, 
now estopped from telling that people that they 
should have voted in the first place.' Have we 
not led them into this security? Have we not 
given them, through ourorgan, these direct assur- 
ances, and induced them to act on them? Yes. 
Then we should be estopped from saying that 
they have not done as they should. It is we who 
should be estopped, not they. This should be 
the end of the complaint that the people ought to 
have gone and voted for the delegates. 

It is very observable, Mr. President, that as 
long as that unscrupulous minority there, who 
had been installed into power by an invasion, re- 
tained power, we heard constantly in the Senate, 
"let there be no intervention in the Territory; 
we cannot interfere at all in any way; they must 
work it out themselves; we have turned it over 
to them, and they must work out their own salva- 
tion, for through much tribulation you must enter 
into the kingdom of Heaven; we cannot interfere 
at all." "Well, but, "it was said, "they stole that 
power; and do you calculate to sustain them, 
and make yourselves receivers of stolen goods?" 



" Oh!" it was replied, " there is an estoppel; we 
cannot inquire into it." That went on for some 
time; no relief could be obtained. The people 
endured it. They, to be sure, made some little 
eflbrt. They did what (hey could. They could 
not make any effort according to territorial law. 
They kept reading and reading over the assur- 
ances which their organic act contained, under 
which they went there. Congress told them that 
the people of the Territory should lie left perfectly 
free to form their institutions in their own way. 
The people said: " That is English; it is all ver- 
nacular; we can read that as well as a learned 
man; we have not been left free thus far; we have 
been invaded, conquered, and subdued, passed 
under the yoke, and that condition of things is 
attempted to be perpetuated by the very laws these 
men have made; in short, they have us here as 
absolutely as ever the Samnites liad the Romans 
in the Caudine Forks. What shall we do? Well, 
we will get together, inviting all to participate, 
with us, and we will make a constitution; we will 
let the people vote on that; we will send it to 
Congress, and see if they will not accept it, for 
we do not despair of the justice of our country." 
They made the Topeka constitution. But what 
if they did? They made it, not organizing any 
government under it to bo put in force, but making 
a Legislature, and choosing the necessary officers 
for an organization, altogether subjunctive, alto- 
getherconditional and preliminary, subject to the 
action of Congress. The House of Representa- 
tives accepted it; the Senate rejected it. They 
have, from time to time, continued that organiza- 
tion, not yet despairing but that they would be 
enabled to show Congress what was their true 
condition, and that they would obtain relief. 
They had nothing but vituperation and abuse from 
this Government. They were called by every 
possiblename ofvituperation — I was going to add, 
that the language of billingsgate could present. I 
shall spend no more time about the Topeka con- 
stitution, but pass on in the history of events. 

In October, 1857, so strong were the assurances 
from Governor Walker and Secretary Stanton to 
the people, that they should have a fair election 
of a Territorial Legislature under the congres- 
sional law, that they finally concluded to go into 
it. Though they had been thus far all the while 
cheated and deceived by the assurances of the 
Government; though they had been told they 
should be left free and had not been; though they 
had often been told that they might go to Con- 
gress for redress, and did go and did not get it; 
though they had received assurances of fairness 
but did not have it; yet after all, with great for- 
bearance, they concluded once more to make an 
effort, and they went into the territorial election 
last October. What did it disclose? The Gov- 
ernor received the returns. It is not necessary 
that I should go over them. Hundreds, thou- 
sands of fictitious names were added to the returns 
coming up from places where there were known 
to be not even a hundred voters. Then we are 
told — " estoppel, you must not touch it." The 
Governor did indeed find a way to realize in some 
way his assurances. He said these returns were 
not certified in legal form-r-not that he could set 
them aside for any corruption of substance, cor- 
rupt as he said they were. Even if every name 
waa copied out of the Cincinnati Directory and he 



13 



knew it, lie said he could not touch that; but he 
<Jid fiml ill the form of the returns a chance to get 
rid of tliis fraud. But for that act of his, what 
would have been the effect? That people, with 
three to one, four to one, or five to one against tlie 
parly in power, would again have been subjected 
to the same intolerable oppression which they 
had suffered for years. 

That is what the election of October disclosed. 
It disclosed that the view of that people in rela- 
tion to the tricks and frauds which would be prac- 
ticed on them, and which they told the Governor 
would be practiced on him, were verified, and 
came very near being successful, too. But the elec- 
tion was di^clared. Now has come the time in 
October, 1857, after all this trouble, going through 
this cliapter of suffering and of shame, when the 
people of that Territory have, for the first time, 
become organized under their territorial act, and 
it is in the hands of the free-State men. 

What takes place next.' Immediately on that 
appearing, and appearing very clearly and dis- 
tinctly, a part of the delegates to the convention, 
a bare majority of the whole number that were 
elected, assembled. All looked upon it that that 
election had settled the status of Kansas; but these 
men, in a spirit of desperation, apparently come 
together, a bare majority, enough to make a quo- 
rum, and their handiwork is before us. What 
was necessary to be done.' To make a constitu- 
tion, and to have it a State constitution. They 
must not submit it to the people, because the peo- 
ple would vote against it. So says the President. 
Now, who authorizes the President, or the Sen- 
ate, or anybody, in the formation of a constitu- 
tion, to say that the majority are factious, and 
therefore the minority shall govern; that the ma- 
jorit}?^ arc rebellious, and therefore the minority 
shall govern.' It is a violation of the very first 
princi|)Ie of popular government. Nobody can 
beautliorized to say that. These delegates formed 
this coii.^ititution but they would not submit it to 
the people. We all know why. It is vain and 
idle for a man to undertake, by special pleading, 
to blink the question at all. We all know why. 
Every man open to conviction at all, in the ex- 
ercise of any moral sense and common discern- 
ment, knows the reason perfectly well, and the 
President does not attempt to disguise it. 

In (H-der to effect the purposes they had to do 
several things. In the first place, they had them- 
selves given assurances that it should be submit- 
ted. In the next place, the Governor had given 
assurances that it should be submitted. Then it 
would not do entirely not to submit it. It must 
be submitted. to the people in some form in order 
to redeem these pledges. Again, they must take 
care to submit it in such a form as to secure the 
effect they wanted any way, and at the same time 
keep up the appearance of having submitted it. 
Another point was to be effected. It would not 
do to submit this constitution in such a way that 
the legal officers of the Territory should have any- 
thing to do with the election. If the legal officers 
for superintending the elections, the territorial 
judges of election, were allowed to superintend 
the election on the constitution, it was known they 
would n jcct unlawful votes. They have just been 
appoinicd by (he jieople who elected the Legisla- 
ture in October; they wei'e free-State )ieople. 
They would not allow cheating and false returns, 



and therefore they could not be the instruments 
of these men; they must avoid using them. 

It was also obvious that the Governor would not 
allow his office to be used to bolster up false returns. 
The old game was blocked; and they must have 
a new pack; the old one was known by the backs 
of the cards; the game could not be played any 
longer. GovernorWalker would not allow cheat- 
ing. They had tried it in the October election, 
and he would not let it succeed. Now, they must 
avoid him; there must not be any return made to 
him any way. 

Another thing was to be done. The Legisla- 
ture elected in October were to meet In January, 
they might meet earlier, and they might possibly 
pass a set of laws so that if the convention per- 
mitted the laws in operation at the time of the 
admission of the State under the constitution to 
bi> operative, these men might not be able to suc- 
ceed in any of their purposes. 

To avoid all this, they went on to provide that 
the constitution, as they said, sluuild be submit- 
ted to the people for th^ir adoption or rejection, 
in the manner following to wit: each man was to 
vote "the constitution with slavery," or 'Khe 
constitution without slavery;" and if a majority 
voted for it with slavery, it should all be adopted 
as it was; if a majority voted for it without sla- 
very, then the clause which provided i'or the 
perpetuation of the existing slavery in the Ter- 
ritory should be continued, but no more slaves 
should be introduced. What is the English of all 
this.' " Nobody is to be permitted to vbte to re- 
ject this constitution. It is not to be submitted 
to the people for their ratification or rejection, as 
we say, but it is to be submitted for ratification or 
rejection in such a manner that it cannot be re- 
jected. In the next place, this shall be a slave- 
holding State in any event, in either alternative, 
on either horn of thg dilemma, vote as the people 
may." Was that submitting a constitution to 
the vote of the people for ratification or rejection .' 
Was that submitting even the question of whether 
it should beaslaveholdingState or not.' It clearly 
was neither. It was a cheat and a delusion. 

Again, they provided that, instead of having the 
elections conducted by the regular judges of elec- 
tion, the lawful off.cers, men should be appointed 
by Mr. Calhoun, removable by iiim, and should 
make their returns, not to the Govurnor, but to 
Mr. Calhoun. After the convention adjourned, 
had finished its business, and he was thereby out 
of office, the votes were to be returned to him — a 
man who was not an offict;r known to the law. 
He cannot be impeached for his conduct in this 
matter; he is under no legal sanctions whatever. 
These instrumentalities are resorted to for the 
first time in the history of the cmintry, as far as 
I know. I am not aware of any previous example 
of the ap|ioiiitment of officers, making returns, 
and supervising elections by men not known to 
the law, not amenable to law. I know they state, 
in the schedule to their constitution, that these 
persons should be subject to the same penalties 
as legal officers under the laws of the Territory. 
It hajipened that there were no lav/s of the Terri- 
tory on tile subject at that time; i)ut if there were, 
these men could not be sulijected to them, for that 
would be an act of legislation, ami the convention 
had no power of legislation. 

It will be observed that these proceedings were 



14 



=1= 



after the la.st Oi-.tobei' election. A vote was taken 
on tlie ait^t of December, as ordiTcd by the con- 
vention in their schedule. They have returned 
some six tlioiisiind votes as having l)een cast on 
that day; but the gentlemen who inspected them, 
and were present on the occasion of the opening 
of these votes, tell us there could not be more than 
two thuusainl of ihcm "genuine. They knew the 
country, knew the people, and state that fact. 

Now, sir, what is Congress asked to do? We 
are a.sked to take a constitution so made, this 
child and result of original violence and C'ontinued i 
fraud, and put it upon that people against their 
will. When they complain of fraud it is said they 
are estopped; and now you propose to cram this 
constitution into the mouths, and stuff it down 
the throats efihe people; you will not permit them 
to say anything; they are estopped I That is what 
we are asked to do, and various reasons are given 
for it; but should we do it? Ought we to do it 
because we may find the sanctions and forms of 
law thrown around this proceeding ? There never 
wSh a usurpation, there never was a tyranny im- 
posed on a people which was not under the forms 
of lAw. The forms of law are the last things to 
give way; but should we try to shrink behind 
those forms, and refuse to know the truth ? 

The first claim on this ground, the first argu- 
ment i)» support of this measure, is that this con- 
stitution was made lawfully. That word has va- 
rious senses and applications. It may be said 
that anything is lawful that is not directly unlaw- 
ful. If i^ thing is not unlawful, you may say it 
is a lawful act. There was nothing unlawful in 
the p(>ople assembling atTopeka to make a con- 
stitution. There was nothing unlawful, I take it, 
in tlie Cin(;innati convention. It was a lawful 
meetinic; that is, it was not unlawful; but that is 
not what we are after. The question we should 
be upon, and that alone ^hicii should justify the 
proceeding is, is it authoritative? That is the 
question. Suppose the convention which assem- 
bled there, waiving all other points, was assembled 
by a vote of all the people; it was not unlawful; 
but was it authoritative? That entirely depends 
on this question: had that convention any such 
authoriiy t'rorn the source of power in the Terri- 
tory, that is, the Government of the United States, 
as enabled them authoritatively to proceed? I in- 
sist that they had none at all. 

Something is said, and more alluded to, about 
the treaty with France; and it is intimated that 
as to the country which was within the Louis- 
iana purchase, the treaty with Prance gave some 
sort of authoriiy for making a State. I should like 
to know what it is. I know that treaty provided 
that the p(^oplo then in the ceded Territory, tlie 
French subjects who were there, (for they had no 
right to provide for others,) should be protected in 
their property. Kansas was an utter wildermss 
then, with no people in it. The treaty said further 
that they should have the privileges of citizens of 
the United States, and be admitted into the Union 
at the proper time. That is the substance of the 
provision Did that authorize them to form a State 
constitution? There was that whole region of 
Louisiana, from the mouth of the Mississippi to 
its head, and extending west to the Rocky Mount- 
ains, all included in this purchase. Supjiose there 
had been fifty thousand or otie hundred thousand 
people in that vast region: would any man say 



that pcojile had a right to make it into aSiaie and 
that iheir taking iiroceedings by a convention for 
that purpose would have been authoritative? It 
is not true that either the whole or any part of 
that region, whether shaped into a Territory or 
not, has any such inherent power, or any such 
authority derived from that treaty. I undertake 
to say therf is not a single word in that clause of 
the treaty but would have been equally good law 
if it had not been there. It was well enough to 
provide in the treaty that the inhabitants of the 
ceded country should be pi'otected in their rights 
and property. That is said from abundant cau- 
tion, but it is in the law of nations even if it were 
not in the treaty. No authority was derived from 
that. 

Then, where did they get authority to make this 
constitution r Have they had any enabling act? 
Not at all. Did tliey need any under that treaty ? 
The people of Louisiana had one; the people of 
Missouri had one; the people of Iowa had one. 
They were all within the limits of the country ac- 
quired by that treatyr If Kansas did not need 
any enabling acts, over what part of the ceded 
country did that requirement extend ? Did it tiike 
in much or little ? I supposed all portions had the 
same right. There is nothing in tlial treaty which 
tends at all to intimate that there was any such 
power given to that people, nor has the conduct 
of the Government shown any cotemporaneous 
construction like that, but it is directly the other 
way. 

There is a very great importance in Icnowing 
whether a thing is done authoritatively or not. 
When any election is hoUlen, or any proceeding 
taken by authority of law, it is totally imma- 
terial how many people vote or how many stay 
at home. When the law is passed by competent 
authority, the vote thus given is conclusive; it is 
not permitted to be rebutted; no fact can be ad- 
mitted against it; all the world is informed " there' 
is the law; go and vote under that law, because 
you are to be bound by it at any rate; if you do 
not like what is to take place, go and iiy your 
vote prevent it if you can." If an election is 
held in any district, in any city, in any State, or 
in the Union, by authority, the vote pas.-ed under 
that authority is conclusive. I insist, liowever, 
that the Territory of Kansas never had any au- 
thority for proceeding to form a State constitu- 
tion. Congress has never passed any enabling 
act for Kansas. I know that the Presidentseems 
disposed now to say (and some gentlemen here 
seem disposed to affirm) that there is something 
to be found in the act organizing the Territory of 
Kansas, which amounted to an enabling act. I 
should like to have the words pointed out some- 
where. Is an enabling act to be found in those 
very important words which declared that the 
people of the Territory should be left perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic institu- 
tions in their own way ? Is that it ? If that is it, 
; they might have formed a State constitution as 
soon as they got twenty men there. Kansas has 
not sufficient population for one Representative in 
] Cong^ess now; nor is it put on any ground of that 
I kind; but it is said the act organizing the Terri- 
tory is itself an enabling act. If so, it was an 
enabling act the next day after a man went tliere. 
Congress, however, never understood it as an 
.enabling act; and- the President, who signed it, 



15 



never understood it so. Wlien these difficulties 
arose, President Pierce rccumniended to Coneress 
to )iass an enabling; act for the Territory of Kan- 
sas, to be put into operation whenever it should 
have tlie proper number of inhabitants.. An 
attempt to jia* an enabling act succeeded in this 
body during the last Congress. If Katisas already 
had such an act, why was that attempt made; 
why was that bill passed by this body.' Most 
clearly it is left to this late day to discover, and 
that, too, without saying where you can find it, 
that tiie territorial act is an enabling act. I do 
not know but that it may be referred to some other 
words in the act, those which declare that the 
Legislature shall have power to legislate on all 
rightful sulijects of legislation; but those words are 
in all the territorial organic acts. If the Kansas 
act was an enabling act because of those words, 
every territorial act Congress have ever passed 
was an enabling act, and they never needed any 
otlicr. The practice of the Government shows 
that this idea is entirely without foundation. It 
is a mere assumption. 

Then I say this proceeding was without au- 
thority; but the President and the friends of this 
measure keep repeating that it was done according 
to law. I admit that it was not unlawful; but is 
everything that is not unlawful, therefore author- 
itative ? Certainly not. I do not deny that del- 
egates may assemble in a convention to form a 
constitution, and the people may even vote for it, 
and ratify it, and organize a government under it, 
Sjtibjunclively, conditionally, and present that con- 
stitution to Congress as a petition for admission 
as a State; and if Congress choose to ratify it, it 
is all very well. But what is the effect in such 
cases .' Congress admit States in their discretion 
— I do not mean caprice — I mean a judicious dis- 
cretion. When a constitution comes here formed 
by authority, we have simply to see whether the 
conditions on which that authority was granted 
have been complied with. There is a sort of 
plighted faith, " if you do so and so, we will ad- 
mit you," as in the case of Minnesota; and if we 
find that they have done so, we ought to admit 
them. When, however, the act is done, as I may 
say in inv'Uum, done by the people themselves 
without authority, then before Congress ratify it 
they should inquire into all the circumstances 

Arkansas came with a constitution made by a 
convention under the authority of the Territorial 
Legislature. The case was fully examined, and 
it was decided during General Jackson's admin- 
istratiim, by his proper legal officer, that that had 
no binding force; but after all it was not unlawful; 
Congress might ratify it if they chose; it was a 
mode of petitioning. Michigan came pretty much 
in the same way. After a fult' examination those 
two States were admitted. 

Thin how does the matter stand .' If a pro- 
ceeding of this kind is taken in any form, it may 
be thai prima facie we should consider that it is 
all right. If it is not disputed, we should receive 
it. If it has been fairly conducted, we should take 
it. If nobody objects to it, the case is prima facie 
good. There is a great deal in thut prima facie. 
I have always thought it was a pretty good defi- 
nition of a young lawyer wlio, when called upon 
to explain what he meant by a prima fucie case, 
said he meant a case good in front and bad in the 
rear. [Laughter.] That is a true definition. This 



prima facie case, not made by authority, is a mat- 
ter to he examined into, especially when it is ques- 
tioned. On this occa.sion question is made. When 
Arkansas presented herconstitulion, nobody ques- 
tioned it; the people there were satisfied with it. 
When Michigan presented her constitution, the 
people there were satisfied with it. When this 
case, however, is presented here, got up in the 
manner I have stated, (without my finding any 
other fault with it now, without going over what 
I have previously said,) the people do find fault 
with it; and we are asked to look into it and see 
if it is really what it purports to be. Will you 
look into it.? will you examine whether it is fair ? 
Resolutions were offered to this body to enable 
the Committee on Territories to examine it, but 
the Senate refused to clothe the committee with 
power to obtain the means of examination. I 
take it this is a pretty good indication of what is 
to be done. I am aware that the Senate do not 
mean to inquire. What do you mean to do ? " To 
insist that this is authority at any rate; we will 
stick to it; and as to the point whether the pro- 
ceeding was done fairly or not, we will not know; 
we are afraid that if we undertake to inquire, we 
shall ascertain that it is not fair, and therefore we 
do not mean to inquire." To my mind, this is 
making a very extraordinary use of the doctrine 
of estoppel. 

There is another topic i-unning collaterally with 
this to which I wish to allude. During the last 
four years there has run along with this proceed- 
ing another pretty important point cininectcd with 
it, and that is what I call the political dogma that 
slave property, if you call it property, is precisely 
the same in legal character as any other property; 
being such that its owners have a riglit to carry 
it into the Territories, by virtue of tlie Constitu- 
tion of the United States. That idea began, I be- 
lieve, with Mr. John C. Calhoun; and for some 
time after he started it, it was almost universally 
scouted. There were very few men found any- 
where in this country who received it. It lias 
been presented , however, on plausible grounds. It 
has been asked, " cannot the f)eople of every State 
go to the Territories with their property all alike.' 
Cannot a man go there from Virginia with the 
same property as a man from Massachusetts; and 
a man from Vermont go there with the same prop- 
erty as a man from Georgia.' Certainly, all can go 
alike; but the property of one may perhaps l>e of 
such a kind that it cannot be carried there at all; 
but that is not the fault of the law. If there is 
any difficulty of that sort, it results from the na- 
ture of the property. It may be, if you please, 
tropical fruit, that would perish before you could 
get it there. That is the misfortune of the owner 
if he undertakes to carry it there; it is not owing 
to the law. 

I come back to the question whether slave prop- 
erty is such as can be carried out of its Slate — 
j whether it is the same as other property ? Here I 
; cannot avoid, because it is thrust continually in 
the way, speaking in some measure of what is 
called the Dred Scott decision. As I have said, 
I the dogma of the right to carry slave property, like 
other property, beyond the limits of tlie States, 
' at first was not received at all. Did anybody sup- 
I pose that it was the correct doctrine when Con- 
i gress passed laws fixing certain lines, and saying 
I slavery should not go north of them ? Did they 



16 



dream of anythinj^ of that kind then ? No. Even 
in modern times, since we obtained the territories 
acquired from iXJexico, was it adopted as a cor- 
rect doctrine ? I believe in the compromise of 1850, 
when ('iingress made the law that New Mexico 
should lie admitted, wither withoutslavery, when 
tliey came to form a State constitution, the hon- 
orable Senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] op- 
posed that, because it did not go far enough. He 
insisted that Congress should go on and repeal 
the existing law of Mexico, in order to let them 
fairly in. I am right, I believe, in that. 

Mr. TOOMBS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COLL AM ER. I am certain as to that. 
An honorable member of the other House from 
Georgia [Mr. Stephens] took the same ground; 
and when what was called the Clayton compro- 
mise was off'i-red in the House of Representa- 
tives, it was laid on the table, on his motion, on 
that very ground. This doctrine was not con- 
sidered good then. It has grown up and reached 
its pre.sent elevation since iliat time. I do not 
propose at this time to go into a critical examin- 
ation of the Dred Scott decision; I do not propose 
a review of it. I shall simply speak now as to 
this particular point. What is that decision.' Is 
there anything authoritative in it.' The Supreme 
Court hail a ease before them. The court decided, 
on a full hearins:, tiiat they had no sort of juris- 
diction of tli(! case, and ordered it to be disinis.sed, 
or sent to the court below to be dismissed. How 
came they, then, to have authority to make a de- 
cision.' They had no authority, no jurisdiction, 
of the case. They said they had not. Clearly, 
whatever else they said was extra-judicial. I do 
not say that ihe Supreme Court should never pass 
on any political question; but I do say that it 
would be very much to be regretted that they 
should be 01)1 iged to do so. If we desire that that 
court shall sustain its position and command the 
confidence of the country, it certainly ought to be 
kept clear and steered clear of being obliged to 
break down that confidence by running across a 
political question which agitates the whole coun- 
try. Tiny should avoid it if they can; but it 
may be that a case before the court involves a 
question in deciding which they must jiass upf)n 
it. When they must, they must. I cannot but 
say, after all, I should apply to such a case the ' 
words of the Prince of Denmark to the ghost: \ 
" Thdu coiii'st in such a questionable shape, \ 

That I will .speak to tliee." 

If it comes in such a shape, involved in the 
question that they must speak to it, very well; 
but nothing else can excuse it. I think it is very 
much to be regretted that the judges.of that court, 
or any of them, should have thought proper to ^ 
employ ilieir extra-judicial lucubrations in put- 
ting forth px catkedra indorsements of a political 
dogma. The indorsers of accommodation paper 
very seldom find that it is a profitable business. 
They either fail to give currency to the paper, or 
else they have to meet it themselves. 

In examinino: the question whether the Consti- 
tution of the United Stales recognizes and pro- 
tects slave property, as it is claimed, the same as 
other properly, I cannot but say that I think, in 
the first place, it has been disposed of by very 
cheap logic. Most of it is a mere assumption — 
an assumpiinn, in my judgment, exceedingly ar- 
rogant in some of its forms; but I wish to give it 



what I believe to be a candid and honest exam- 
! ination; and I will not be tedious about it. I do 
j not say that slaves are never property. 1 do not 
' say that they are, or are not. Within the limits 
of a State which declares them ta be property, 
they are property, because they are wiihin the 
jurisdiction of that government wliich makes the 
declaration; but I should wish to speak of it in 
the light of a member of tiie United Siatete Senate, 
and in ihe lanijuage of the Unitid States Consti- 
tution. If this be property in the States, what is 
the nature and extent of it.' I insist that the Su- 
preme Court have often decided, and everybody 
has understood, that .slavery is a local institution, 
existing by force of State law; and of course that 
law can give it no possii)le character beyond the 
limits of that Slate. 1 shall no doubt find the idea 
better expressed in the o|)inion of Judfje Nelson, 
in this same Dred Scott decision. I prefer to read 
his language. He declares: 

'• Kvery Siale or nation posse.sses .in cxclu-sivc sovercisnty 
ami jnilsiliction williin her own territory; and In-r laws 
afl'eci and liind all property and persons r('>idhi<; within it. 
It may rej;nlati' the nianner and circumstances under wliicli 
property is held, anil the condilion, cafiacity. and Stale, of 
all persons then^in ; and. also, the remedy and the modes of 
adininistcriiij; justice. .\.nd it is equally true.tliat no State 
or nation can affect or bind property out of its terrilor*-, or 
persons not residing witliMi it. No Stale, therefore, can 
cnaci huvs to operate lieyoud its ciwn dominions : and, if it 
attempts to do so, may be lawlnlly rel'used obedii'nee. Such 
laws can have no autliority extra territorially. This is tht: 
necessary result of the indepundonce of distinct and sepa- 
rate sovereignties." 

Here is the law; and under it exists the law of 
slavery in the different States. By virtue of this 
very principle, it cannot exiend one inch beyond 
its own territorial limits. A Slate cannot regulate 
the relation of master and slave, of owner and 
property, the manner and title of descent, orany- 
ihing else, one inch beyond its territory. Then 
you cannot, by virtue of the law of slavery, if it 
makes slaves property in a State, if you please, 
move that property out of the State. It ends 
whenever you pass from that State. You may 
pass into another State thai has a like law; and 
if you do, you hold it by virtue of that law; but 
the moment you pass beyond the limits of the 
slaveholding Stales, all title to the property called 
property in slaves, there ends. Under such a law 
slaves cannot be carried as properly into the Ter- 
ritories, or anywhere else beyond the States au- 
thorizing it. It is not property anywhere else. 
If the Conslilution of the United Slates gives agy 
other and further character than thisto slave prop- 
erty, let us acknowledge it fairly ami end all strife 
about it. if it does not, I ask, in all candor, that 
men on the other side shall say so, and let this 
point be settled. What is the point we are to in- 
quire into.' It i.* this: does the Constitution of 
the United States make slaves property beyond 
the jurisdiction of the States authorizing slavery .' 
If it only acknowledges them as property wiihin 
th;it jurisdiction, it has not extended the properly 
one inch beyond the State line; liut if, as the Su- 
preme Court seems to say, it docs recognize and 
protect them as properly further than Stale limits, 
and more ihan the State laws do, then, indeed, it 
becomeslike other property. The Supreme Court 
rest this claim upon this clause of the Constitu- 
tion: 

" No person held to service or labor in one Stale' under 
the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or rcgii- 



17 



Ijitioii tliorein, 1)6 (iiscliarged IVoin such service or labor ; hut 
shall l)e delivered up on cinim of the party to wlioin such 
service or labor may be due."' 

Now the question is, does that guaranty it? 
Does that make it tlie same as other property? 
The very fact that this ehiuse makes provision on 
the subject of persons bound to service, shows 
that the iVamers of the Cojistitulioii did not regard 
it as other property. It was a tiling tiiat needed 
some provision; other property did not. Tiie 
insertion of such a provision shows that it was 
not regarded as oilier property. If a man's horse 
stray from Delaware into Pennsylvania, he can 
go and get it. Is there any provision in the Con- 
stitution for it? No. How came this to be there, 
if a slave is jiroperty? If it is the same as other 
property, why have any provision about it? 

Again, you will observe that this provision re- 
lutes only to those who may esca|)e. The horse 
escapes and runs away into another State, and 
the owner can pursue him there. Can he pursue 
him any better there because he escaped, than if 
he rode him there? If the owner rode the horse 
from Delaware into Pennsylyania, he could still, 
I take it, go home on him. He would not need 
any provision of the Constitution for that. But 
here they seemed to find it necessai'y to make pro- 
vision that the slave should go home with the 
master, if he escaped. They provided only for 
those who escaped; and therefore, if a man takes 
Ills slave over voluntarily, this provision of the 
Constitution is that he. cannot take him back, be- 
cause it only covers those that escape. Then it 
is not like other property. It not only does not 
put it on the ground of other property, but it ab- 
solutely abnegates the idea of its being like other 
property. Othei- properly he could bring away, 
whether it ran off or was carried off. With slaves 
it is different. Then it is not like other property. 
That recognition does not put it on the ground 
of other property. 

In the next place, what do you mean by guar- 
antying property t,o be the same as others? How 
is others? I take it that guarantying rights over 
property means, to enable the owner to take it and 
use it, and sell it to others to use anywhere and 
everyv^here. But, even in relation to escaped 
slaves, does this provision of the constitution en- 
able the owner of those sljives to go where they 
have escaped, to a free State, and there take them 
and keep them, Snd hold them, and sell them? 
No such thing. It only authorizes him to take 
them home, into and under that law where he is 
entitled to their service. Property he can take, 
keep, hold, sell, and use, anywhere. The Consti- 
tution, I repeat, only enaWes him, as to escaped 
slaves, to take them home — not to sell them and 
use them in the free Slate where he finds them. 

It seems to me, on this slight view of the sub- 
ject, the strangest thing in the world thatanybody 
can say that this provision of the Constitution 
(and it is thoonly provision under which the claim 
is made) actually guaranties this property abso- 
lutely, makes it the same as property generally, 
puts it on the same footing, and guaranties own- 
ership over it in the same degree. Obviously, 
clearly, and plainly, it does not; but what is it? 
Nothing more nor less than a recognition of the 
idea that one man may have interest in another 
man's labor under the law of a State, and that if 
the man owing the service escapes from that State, 



the person to whom he ov/esthe service may take 

1 1 him back, there to be entitled to receive the ad- 

jl vantage of that right. In short, it recognizes 

jj slavery, if property at all, to be property local 

I within the State whose laws made it such, notan 

!j inch beyond it; and all it does is to enable a man 

'} from whom a person owing service has escaped 

i against his will, to reclaim him. It can be carried 

j no further than a recognition of slavery in those 

I States where the laws make it so, to be used there 

and taken ba«k if it runs away, but leaving it still 

precisely as it stood before. The law that makes 

it, makes it such only within the territory where 

that law exists. The moment you willingly pass 

outof thatlimit with what you call the property, it 

ceases to be property altogether. How, then, can 

you take it to a Territory ? Tl)is seems to me to 

be an end of the assumption that it is made the 

same as other property by the guarantees of the 

Constitution. It is an assumption without any 

SQrt of foundation. 

Mr. M A.SON. If it would not derange the Sen- 
ator's line of argument, while he is on that topic, 
I desire to put an inquiry to him. As I under- 
stand the basis on which his present argument 
rests, it is the assumption that slavery exists only 
as the creation of positive law. I hold the very 
opposite; and if he has any authority on which to 
base his position, I should be gratified to hear it. 
I hold, on the contrary, that slavery is a condition 
only, the condition of property; that property is 
a condition which the slave brought from Africa, 
a condition recognized by the common law of 
this country, and therefore property ever after- 
wards unless abrogated by po.sitive law. 

Mr. COLLAMER. Mr. President, I did sup- 
pose, though I did not know exactly whether the 
honorable Senator from Virginia was of that 
school, that it was claimed even on a higher 
ground; that it was not the accidental condition 
of the man in Africa, brought here, but that it 
was a Divine right, begun by authority from on 
high, and sanctioned by revelation. This has 
been claimed. I do not know that I am competent 
to meet these arguments and these claims of right; 
but when an occasion presents itself, when I have 
time to do so — I have other topics to advert to 
now — I should desire to be heard on that point. 
I merely desire now to say to the Senator, that 
if he will turn to the Dred Scott decision he will 
find what I have already read, and the court put 
this right on the ground of its local authority. 
Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion, says that it 
has been claimed and argued before the court 
that this condition of things is recognized as a 
part of the law of nations, and he utterly repudi- 
ates that whole idea. If the Senator will look at 
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 
Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he 
will find that the Supreme Court decided that the 
local law of the States where it exists, is the true 
foundation of the right to hold slaves; and the 
same decision has been .made repeatedly in thS 
State courts, even in the slaveholding States tliefli- 
selves; and the Supreme Court of the United 
States have repeatedly taken that ground. I shall 
not, however, notice this point now, but proceed 
with my argument. 

In my view, the security, the saH^ty, of the in- 
stitution of slavery essentially depends, in all 
time, on holding it to be a local institution, the 



18 



creature of local law. If the time shall ever come 
when this is attempted to be made a national 
question, to be passed upon by the people of 
America, it must be perfectly obvious to the very 
extensive discernment of the slaveholdin^ com- 
munity itself what the result must be. In this 
country then; are less than a third of a million of 
slaveholders; there are nineteen millions of free 
white people. If it ever is to be made a national 
question, so that the nation may pass upon it, no 
man can doubt what will be the result. That can 
be determined by the simplest rules of arithmetic; 
it is a mere question of numbers. If it is in- 
tendi,'d to keep within the pale of the Constitu- 
tion, to preserve the unity of the States, to sus- 
tain this Government and remain one people 
toj^jetlur, tiiere is no way in which this institution 
can l)y possiljility be preserved, but by holding- 
it at all timrs to be entirely a local matter, and 
having its orifjinand existence in local law. This 
is the only way it can ever be protected. 

tt seems to me, with that view of the subject, 
that those gentlemen, especially from the south- 
ern States, who seem to be trying to precipitate 
this issue, to push on this point, to extend this 
institution beyond its local limits by the action 
of the Geni-ral Government, are endeavoring to 
push this question upon the people as a national 
matter, in which they must participate, and shall 
participate'. The decision to which I have alluded 
is of that kind; all these proceedings are of that 
kind. What result does that bring about in my 
mind .' These men know what 1 have said to be 
true as well as I do — they know that slavery can- 
not be made national in this country, if you keep 
it together; and every effort made to precipitate 
an issue of that kind is not to abide by that issue, 
but it is when sufficient excitement has been made, 
when a collision has been produced, that a sepa- 
ration sIkiU ensue. I can see nothing else to be 
the design; 1 do not believe in the want of dis- 
cernment of those statesmen. They must look 
at it as I do. 

But that is not all; another step is connected 
with it. You desire to make Kansas a slavehold- 
ing State — that is, to have the constitution so 
formed and adopted. You will not submit it to 
the people, from a consciousness that the people 
are opposed to it. What do gentlemen mean by 
such a proceeding.' Suppose you were to have a 
constitution providing for and perpetuating sla- 
very in Kansas.' You know that the majority of 
that people are against it. Is that any benefit to 
the cause of slavery? Is it desirable to you to ir- 
ritate a community by having forced on them such 
a state of things against their will.' Are you go- 
ing to get any good from that irritation .' Can you 
have slavery there by virtue of that constitution.' 
We all know you cannot. Suppose you have a 
slave-State constitution — I care not how strong 
and how perpi.tiial and liow incapable of change 
it may be — do we not know that at the very first 
filir election by that pijople a Legislature will be 
cl\8sen who, when they get together, will utterly 
refuse to pass any laws for the protection of slave 
property.' They will pass no act for punishing a 
man who may entice a negro to run away. They 
will declare that no master shall adminisler stripes 
and correction to a slave, except by judgment of 
acourt,and if he does he shall be guilty of assault 
and battery, and the negro shall be a witness 



against him. What is your slave property worth 
if you do not pass any law for the protection of 
it, though the constitution provides for the right 
of slavery.' 1 take it that it cannot be unconsti- 
tutional to pass such laws. They could not pro- 
noun(!e the failure to pass them unconstiiulional. 
How, then, will you get along.' We see there is 
nothing in it; and when this is pushed as it is, it 
must be for so me other purpose, some other object. 
We are told what the purpose is of pushing 
this constitution on that people against the will 
of the majority. We are told it from authority. 
I do not wish to quote things from mere recol- 
lection, but I will read some of the words of the 
President himself on that topic. The President 
says, in his message: 

" (t has been solemnly adjutlieateil by the hiirhest Jiiilioi.al 
tribunal known to onr laws, that slavery exists in Kansas 
by virlui! of the Coiistiliition of the United States, and that 
Kansas is tlM?rcl'ore at this nioiueiit as much a slave State 
as Georgia or South Carolina. 

"t^lavery can, therefore, never be prohibited in Kansas 
except by means of a constitutional provision, and in no 
other manner can this be done so proniptly, if a majority 
of the people desire it, as by admitting it into the Union 
under tjic present eousiirution. 

"TiH> peoph^ will then be sovereign, and can reiulate 
their own alfairs in their own way. If a majority of them 
desire to abolish domestic slavery within the Slate, there 
is no oilier possible mode by wliieh this can be rtleeted so 
speedily ashy prompt admission, and the Le^rislature already 
elected may, at its very first session, submit the (juesiion 
to the vote of the people, whether they will or will nut have 
a coffvciuion to amend their constitution." 

I would not intimate that, from so high author- 
ity as this, there was really intended to be any 
practical duplicity about that; I do not believe it; 
I do not intimate it; but I would ask southern gen- 
tlemen do they naean to admit Kansas, under this 
constitution, for that purpose — for the purpose of 
making it a free State in the most speedy manner.'^ 
If they do not, if that is not what they mean to 
do, I think coinmon candor would require them 
to disclaim it. Certain it is, that theses remarks 
could never be expected to extend to those gen- 
tlemen. Who are these remarks intended for, 
then .' As the common saying i.s, they are for the 
marines; they are to afford an opportunity, an 
excuse for men who professedly represent a free- 
State people to vote for it, and to get themselve.i 
intentionally deluded, as the inan said lie expected 
to be disap]iointed. [Laughter.] 

There is some other purpose for this. No ob- 
ject of that kind is seriously intended, for amongst 
other things you will observe, that if Kansas be 
admitted with the Lecompton constitution, wo 
have to adopt the State election which took place 
under it. " Oh ! that is to be settled by their Le- 
gislature." It is.' Whtfis to be the Legislature.' 
Can anybody answer me.' The amount of it is, 
whoever Mr. John Calhoun gives certificates to, 
will be the Legislature; whoever he elects, are 
elected. Can any rnan tell me who they will be? 
He knows, and will not tell. It may indeed be 
that, after all that h;is hajipened, and e.-specially 
after the re'cent investigations by the committee 
of the Territorial Legislature, Mr. Calhoun will 
not think it advisable, in aid of the great purpose 
which he serves, to give the slaveholders, the mi- 
nority there, after all their frauds and all their de- 
ceptions, the election certificates. It wopld be 
too gross, too jialpable. It would not rnily be 
receiving the stolen horse, but it would be con- 
clusive evidence of who had stolen hitn. Suppose 



19 



he dops give the free-State men the Lcgjislature, 
he will give them a bare majority. Now, who 
shall be Governor there? Generally it is said, 
you cannot tell who is Governor until after the 
election; but here you cannot even tell after the 
election; no man can tell now who is to be jGov- 
ernor: Calhoun cannot tell liimself, or if he can, 
he will not. 

We understand distinctly that one side or the 
other is to be cheated. I do not intend to aid in 
taking that position of things by which either my 
opponents or myself are to be cheated; but if we 
adopt this constitution, we take that position. 
You may say that the candle-box was discovered 
full of votes in the wood pile back of Calhoun's 
office, and we can count out the votes there. But j 
will he give certificates according to those votes ? 
Who has any authority to decide. The returns 
were to be made to Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Calhoun 
is to decide. There is the end; there commences 
the estoppel. We are to be estopped now — that is 
the end of it. He splits the difference, as is com- 
monly done by men who do not know how lo de- 
cide either way; he gives a majority of the Legis- 
lature to tlie free-State people because there are 
most of them; and he gives the Governor to the 
other side because they need him. I should like to 
know how any constitution can ever be amended 
in that state of thing.s. The Legislature under- 
takes lo pass a law to call a convention; the Gov- 
ernor vetoes it. Calhoun will not certify the 
election of two thirds of the free-State candidates 
to the Legislature. They cannot overvote the 
Governor, and there is the end of it. 
But the President says that if they are made a 
' State, then indeed they will become an independ- 
ent people, and can manage their affairs in their 
own way. Ah ! well, that is another step in the 
progret^s of popular sovereignty. In the first place, 
they were to go there as people of a Territory, to 
manage their affairs in their own way. In the 
next place, they were not to do it then; but when 
the version given by the Cincinnati conve)ition 
came out, it was that they were to be perfectly 
free in making a State constitution. Now they 
have got to that point; and you say a majority of 
the people shall not make a constitution at all; 
because, if they do, they may be likely to make 
the Topeka constitution, or some one that they 
choose. They cannot do it, then; but at last the 
President has got tn the point, that the only way 
a people can form a State constitution, is to be first 
made into a State; and the most solemn and cor- 
rect way is to pass them through the furnace of 
slavery, make liiem a State in that form, and they 
will then just be fitted to turn free. Besides, they 
can never manage their affairs in their own way, 
though you have told them so over and over and 
over again, until they can get out of the clutches 
of this Govenunent. He say.s, when you admit 
them as a State, then they may manage their own 
affairs. Ah, iiuh'ed ! tliat is another step in the 
progress of popular sovereignty. Never, while a 
Territory, can they manage their affairs, nor in 
making a St«te constitution, nor until they can 
get, somehow or other, out of the guardianship 
and beyond the tyranny of this Government over 
them,und be formed into an independent State; 
and then they can do as they please. It is pecu- 
liarly an advantage to them if you can make a 
slave constitution for them, because that will per- 



mit the people to do what they have all desired to 
do, and that is, make it free ! 

Inasmuch as this constitution was not made by 
authority, as I have shown, it presents itself to us 
as a thing done by the act of this convention, not 
unlawfully, and is presented here for our consid- 
eration. Now it is insisted upon at great length, 
that that is not an expression of the will of the 
people. On the face of it, prima fucie, it may be 
so. If you stopped with the vote on the 21st of 
Decemljer, you might, ;)rf«i«./i/c(e, say , ' ' I presume 
it is all right;" but wiien it is suggested, when it 
is pleaded , when it is directly alleged in the plead- 
ings, that this is not the expression of the will of 
the majority of the people of Kansas, then comes 
the question for us to examine. Had it been by 
authority, it would have been conclusive. "Not 
being by authority, but by the voluntary proceed- 
ing of the people who went into that convention, 
i't is for us to examine into the truth of it, to as- 
certain whether it is the will of that people or 
not. 

I shall not enlarge on the points I have hereto- 
fore made, but simply come to this one: on the 
4th day of January last, under an act of the Ter- 
ritorial Legislature, a vote of the people was taken 
on the very question of the adoption of this con- 
stitution by avUliority of law, and under the sanc- 
tion of the Legislature, and they voted, by ten 
thousand majority, against it. Whenever pro- 
ceedings are taken that are not authoritative, and 
they present themselves to Congress for our ac- 
tion, how are we to act in our discretion? If it 
is done by authority, it is conclusive; but if not 
done by authority, and it presents a prima facie 
correct case, as was the case in Arkansas and 
I Michigan, admit it; but when it is disputed, then 
it becomes a substantive fact, to be approved 
affirmatively. The f8rf^t to be proved is, that it 
does present the view of the majority of the peo- 
ple; not only prima, facie so, but that it is in fact 
so, and that is to be ascertained by examination. 
The moment we touch this examination it shows 
us not merely that this is not the will of the peo- 
ple, and is not the desire of the majority, but it 
abnegates it, and shows conclusively that it is 
contrary to the desire of that people — not only 
that they are not for it, but that they reject it alto- 
gether. Why, then, do you not examine it ? We 
are estopped, it is said; we cannot get at the truth; 
there is an estoppel. We, as Senators, are will-, 
fully to shut our eyes to the true condition of the 
people of that Territory. 

I have a word now to say in relation to the re- 
port of the committee, presented by tlic honorable 
Senator from Missouri, and his remarks upon it. 
I cannot go into a detailed examination of its parts, 
but I wish to group togeAer its leadingpoints. It 
consists of three essential elements. In the first 
place, it is assumed that this proceeding was done 
j by law, and is, therefore, authoritative, and that 
j there is an end of the question. I have said all 
! that I wish to say on that point. I say it was not 
[ done by authority ; it is, therefore, not conclusive, 
1 and, of course, that leaves the subject open to our 
! examination. 

i The report insists next, that the people of Kan- 
j sas ought to be bound by it because they did not 
! vote against the calling of the convention. I have 
[ explained that. The laws disfranchised them at 
i the time that vote was taken. It is said they are 






LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



20 



estopped because they did not participate in the 
election of delegates to the convention. They did 
not choose to vote then, because of the nature of 
the census; because of tiie want of confidence in 
the officers wiio were to conduct the election; and 
more especially because they were assured by 
the Governor that whatever co'nstitution the con- 
vention miirht make, they should have a right 
to pass upon ic. They have been cheated out of 
that. 

In the third place, the report insists that these 
people should be estopped and bound liy tliis pro- 
(^eediiig, because they did not vote on ilie 21st of 
December on the question then submitted to the 
[leople. I have explained how that submission 
was made. The people did not choose to be the 
dupOTs of that trickery. There is a good reason 
why they did notvoteon that occasion. Besides, 
iheir own Territorial Legivslature met before the 
21st of December, and directed them to vote upon- 
the constitution on the 4th of January. They tlien 
did vote upon, it, and voted it down. They had 
been repeatedly assured by this Government, by 
its officers, that they should have that right, and 
they exercised it on the 4th of .January. Tlie Gov- 
(•rnment should be'estopped from saying that they 
have not acted properly in doing so. 

The next ingredient in the composition of the 
majority report is, that everything operates by 
way of estoppel. Each one of these acts estops 
the people. I need not repeat or add to what I 
have already said on that point. There is noth- 
ing in the nature of the acts which could operate 
as an estoppel. 

There is one other clement, an essential one. 
We complain il'.at the people of Kansas were sub- 
jugated by military force; that they have been 
kept in thraldom and oppression until lastOctober; 
and that then proceedings \vere taken to make a 
constitution in the matuier I have described. For 
- what purpose.' To frustrate the territorial gov- 
ernment going on, when it is now, for the first 
time, in fair legal operation. When it was in the 
hands of tiie usurpers there could be no interven- 
tion. The moment it is in the hands of the ma- 
jority of the people, intervention is loudly called 
for, and Congress must help it through. For what 
purpose ? To put down a people wlio have taken 
possession of their true rights; and in order to do 
that, make a great deal of complaint in relation to 
those people. 1 cannot go over the report in its 
detaihs'; but I will state a few of the terms of 
reproach and vituperation employed in order to 
excite jn-ejudice and get up aiiimosity against the 
majority in Kansas. I find such expressions as 
these in the majority report: " They went there 
the worstofaspurious population;" " hired mer- 
cenaries of Abolition societies, trying to do what 
Congress had no r^ghtto do;" "committingmost 




revolting outrages;' a m^ ii^'^'Z.' '"""i mil mi I 

ment, wrangling, a ^ "16 085 218 5 

spirits encouraged by restless fanatici-sm; ^^k, 
olition agitators and disturbers, habitually setting 
all law at defiance;" "contumacious." I extract 
these few epithets from the report. This is one 
of the elements which is interwoven with, and en- 
ters into, the warp and woof of the whole of this 
report. I have no answer to make to such charges. 
1 simply present them. 

I think, Mr. President, that for the reasons 
which I have already given, this constitution 
ought not to be received Ijy us, and enforced upon 
an unvv-illing people. It is a violation of the very 
first principles of our Government. If we do it, 
we directly give countenance to all the violence 
and fraud out of which it has grown; we crown 
them witli success; we encourage their repetition. 
But that is not all. In a popular Government like 
ours there are two very iniportant points to be 
considered in the transaction of all public busi- 
ness. One is to do everything right, and the other 
is to do it in such a way that the community can 
see it is right, so that public confidence may be 
preserved. Our Government is based on public 
confidence. The moment we lose it, we lose our 
hold on the people; we lose our support; we are 
without foundation. Tlie object of a great many 
is to make peace. Make peace by doing what.' 
Doing injustice. Can any man suppose that peace 
is to be obtained — I mean satisfactory quiet, sucli 
as an intelligent people may be satisfied with — by 
acts of violence and injustice, or by giving coun- 
tenance to, and crowning with success, acts of 
violence and injustice.' If we make a peace in 
that coercive manner, we make it at quite- too dear 
a rate. We may buy it at too dear a price. We 
buy it at the price of forfeiting the confidence of 
every man who desires to see justice in the coun- 
cils of his country. 

Such men lose confidence in us when thej'^ sec 
the h ighest departments of this Go vertmient taking 
advantage of and snatching at an opportunity to 
make peace when they have done it without re- 
gard to the true justice of the case and the true 
principles of ourGovernnticnt. When such things 
are done in high or low places no final peace can 
be secured by them; or if it is, it is secured at too 
great a sacrifice, at too high a price. It will stir 
the whole community who fairly examine this 
matter, and excite in them di'Ferent emotions as 
men are difl'erently constituted. But, sir, one 
thing is clear, that if we do it we weaken the al- 
legiance of the people of this country to ourselve.'^: 
they can no longersee in us the iinpersonation ol" 
justice and truth and right. I say its effect on a 
Government conducted like ours is that prayers 
and tears and secret curses sap its mr.ldering 
base and steal the pillars of allegiance from it. 



^» 



